CZ v DA and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Lee Meng J
• Judgment Date: 24 September 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGHC 216
• Docket Number: Originating Summons Family No 21 2004)
• Date: 24 September 2004
• Year: 2004
• Published date: 29 September 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: Arthur Wang (Tan Kim Seng and Partners)
• Citation: [2004] SGHC 216
• Defendant Counsel: Lai Kwok Seng (Lai Mun Onn and Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether grandmother entitled to order for access to child under circumstances,Grandmother alleging parents' negligence and lack of care resulting in child not receiving necessary medical attention for his medical problems,Access,Parent asserting they had taken concrete steps to address child's medical problems,Custody,Family Law

24 September 2004

Tan Lee Meng J:

1 The appellant (“the grandmother”) is the mother of the first respondent, (“the father”), whose wife (“the mother”) is the second respondent. She alleged that her son and her daughter-in-law neglected and abused their son (“the child”), who is eight years old and a Primary One student, to such an extent that she should be appointed the child’s guardian in place of his parents and that she be given custody, care and control of the child. She sought, in the alternative, access to the child and an order that the latter be sent for a full medical examination by, among others, a neurologist. District Judge Regina Ow-Chang Yee Lin dismissed her application to be appointed the child’s guardian and for the child to be sent for a medical examination. She made no order regarding her application for access. I dismissed the grandmother’s appeal against the district judge’s decision and now give the reasons for having done so.

Background

2 The grandmother is a retiree, aged 65 years. She and her husband (“the grandfather”), who is not a party to these proceedings, are the child’s only grandparents as his maternal grandparents passed away before he was born. She is very close to the child and obviously loves him very much. She faulted the child’s parents for failing to send him to see a doctor whenever medical attention was required and she alleged that as a result of his parents’ negligence and lack of care, the child is sickly and appears to be mentally retarded. She is convinced that she would be a better guardian of the child than his parents.

3 The child’s parents, who both have post-graduate qualifications, are business executives. They denied the grandmother’s numerous allegations against them and claimed that the latter is paranoid about the health and welfare of their child. They accepted that their child had some problems but pointed out that they had taken concrete steps to arrest the problems. For instance, when their child showed some signs of developmental dyspraxia, they sent him for speech therapy as well as speech and drama lessons. Furthermore, when the child was diagnosed as having sensory integrative dysfunction, they enrolled him in a course to enhance his sensory processing. They also cared enough to employ a person to help him cope with kindergarten lessons. Apparently, these efforts proved fruitful as the child has made good progress in his courses and kindergarten.

4 Notwithstanding the problems faced by the child’s parents in relation to his grandmother’s paranoia, the child saw his grandmother regularly until October 2003. As the grandmother continued to insist that the child was ill-treated and had medical problems, her relationship with his parents deteriorated. Apart from taking the child to see neurologists who refused to treat him in the absence of his parents, the grandmother made two complaints in April 2003 to the Ministry of Community Development and Sports (“MCDS”) that the child’s parents neglected, mistreated and...